Talk:Mithridates III of Parthia

Mithridates III
How could he have murdered Phraates III in 57 BC if he died in 80/79 BC? Also how is Mithridates III the issue of Phraates III yet his father was Mithridates II? Plus he couldn’t have succeeded Phraates III in Media if he died more than twenty years beforehand LegioV (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * He didn't murder Phraates III though. This is another person. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Mithridates III of Parthia
Majority of (post-2006) Parthian-related sources don't seem to support the existence of this figure, let alone the various other questionable rulers proposed by Assar. Majority of regnal dates by Assar aren't generally supported in scholarship either. M. Rahim Shayegan in Arsacids and Sasanians: Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia (2011) has suggested that Demetrius III Eucaerus was in reality captured by a Parthian general named Mithridates, during the reign of Gotarzes I (pages: 203-204 and 314-315, ). Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As always, historians never agree. I did not dig deep into this, but maybe this will help:
 * A Proposed Revision of the Attributions of the Parthian Coins Struck during the So-called 'Dark Age' and Its Historical Significance by Alberto M. Simonetta
 * If you dont have access to jstor, try using sci-hub
 * The existence of a Mithradates III in 87 BC is supported by Josephus and by a coin type discussed in the article I provided.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've seen that source. Simonetta (unlike Assar) states that Mithridates III fought not Orodes, but Gotarzes, which would make sense regarding the chronology and less of a pain in the butt to attempt to improve these articles. But generally, if a suggestion made by a scholar isn't really supported in scholarship, then I think we should take heed to that. Anyhow, Simoneta's source seems much more realistic and consistent than that of Assar, who comes up with many strange proposals, especially the one regarding the double reign of Sinatruces, which is supported nowhere. I'm just gonna refrain from using Assar, I think it's best that way imho. His work is clearly not seminal, that's for certain. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea, you are right, but a better approach is to attribute a scholar's theories to the scholar and not judge if his arguments are convincing or not. I think the only safe thing we can say is that a Mithradates III existed in 87 BC, then the opinions of scholars supporting this existence should be stated and attributed to them so that the readers understand that what they are reading is not the academic consensus.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess so. This is one reasons I try to avoid the Parthians (at the least the early ones) and other obscure dynasties/rulers of this period. I see you've had your fair share of issues like this as well, looking at the Seleucid articles you've expanded. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea, it can be frustrating, and it was my frustration that led me to expand the Seleucids, which is a thing Im done with for now tbh.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)